hbriefs-logo

National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

Start

⦿ CASE SUMMARY OF:

National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

by PaulPipar

⦿ PARTIES

APPELLANTS

1. National Bank Of Nig;
2. Wemabod Estates Ltd;

v.

RESPONDENTS

1. LADY AYODELE ALAKIJA;
2. MRS. OLAKUNLE OJO

⦿ CITATION
(1978) 9-10 S.C. (REPRINT) 42;
(1978) LPELR-SC.139/1976;

⦿ COURT

Supreme Court

⦿LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:

KAYODE ESO, J.S.C.

⦿ LAWYERS WHO ADVOCATED

FOR THE APPELLANT

– Dr. F.A. Ajayi

FOR THE RESPONDENT

– Professor Kasunmu’s

⦿ FACT

⦿ ISSUE

⦿ HOLDING

⦿ REFERENCED

⦿ SOME PROVISIONS

⦿ NOTABLE DICTA

It is trite law that where our rules are silent on any point of procedure the rules of procedure in the English courts are applicable and it is only this provision that could bring in the relevance of Order 5 of the Rules of Supreme Court (United Kingdom Rules), sub-paragraphs of which provide for the procedure of originating summons and under which the instant proceedings were obviously begun. – KAYODE ESO, J.S.C. National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

Available:  United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc V. BTL Industries Limited (SC. 301/2003, 15 April 2005)

In other words, it is our considered view that originating summons should only be applicable in such circumstances as where there is no dispute on questions of fact or the likelihood of such dispute. Where, for instance, the issue is to determine short questions of construction, and not matters of such controversy that the justice of the case would demand the settling of pleadings, originating summons could be applicable. – KAYODE ESO, J.S.C. National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

That the application by originating summons is no substitute for initiating contentious issues of facts is not far-fetched if one takes a quick look at a short history of the evolution of the procedure. Until 1962, when R.S.C. Revision 1962, O.5, R. 1 took effect, there was not, in the United Kingdom, an absolute right to proceed by originating summons. A plaintiff coming by way of originating summons was under obligation to show that his use of the procedure was required or permitted by a rule or statute. Indeed, the first advent of the term “originating summons” itself was by the Chancery Procedure Act 1852 which replaced the old mode of commencing proceedings in the Court of Chancery by “bill” (later simplified by introduction of “claims”) with the commencement of a suit in certain cases only by “a summons originating proceedings in chambers”. In 1883 the Rules of the Supreme Court (1875) were recast and the term “originating summons” was, for the first time, introduced into the terms and defined. – KAYODE ESO, J.S.C. National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

Available:  Federal Civil Service Commission & Ors v. J.O. Laoye (1989)

However, the main advantage of the procedure by originating summons has always been simplicity resulting from the elimination of pleadings. And from the early times the courts have refrained from trying matters of disputed question of facts on originating summons. – KAYODE ESO, J.S.C. National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

Available:  Godwin Josiah v. The State (1985) - SC

However, the main advantage of the procedure by originating summons has always been simplicity resulting from the elimination of pleadings. And from the early times the courts have refrained from trying matters of disputed question of facts on originating summons. – KAYODE ESO, J.S.C. National Bank Of Nigeria & Anor v. Lady Ayodele Alakija & Anor (1978)

End

SHARE ON

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Telegram
WhatsApp

Form has been successfully submitted.

Thanks.

This feature is in work, and currently unavailable.